Sally Clark was 'let down' by authorities - Observer article
Extracts:
"Friends of Sally Clark, who died on Friday, yesterday attacked the authorities for failing to support her after she was freed from prison.
Clark was wrongly jailed for the murder of her two sons and was later cleared. Angela Cannings, who was also falsely convicted for the murder of her two sons and was close to Clark, launched an angry broadside against health and social service teams for leaving the former solicitor to cope without professional help."
"Penny Mellor, a friend of the Clark family, said that Mrs Clark's time in prison had left a stain on the rest of her life. She was assaulted by other prisoners and lived in fear that they would try to poison her food. 'If you've been convicted as a child killer you become a focal point for all the hatred in prison,' Mellor said.
Mrs Clark, 42, was found guilty of murdering her sons, Christopher and Harry, but was cleared by the Court of Appeal in 2003 in a landmark ruling that highlighted serious flaws in the use of evidence provided by expert witnesses. She was found to have been wrongly convicted of the two murders after medical evidence emerged which had not been presented at her trial.
Professor Sir Roy Meadow gave evidence during her trial, claiming that the probability of two natural unexplained cot deaths in the family was 73 million to one. That figure was disputed by the Royal Statistical Society and other medical experts, who said the odds of a second cot death in a family were around 200-1."
I wonder whether Professor Sir Roy Meadow ever even apologised to Mrs Clark or the other women whose lives he destroyed when he wrongly accused them of murdering their babies? - I doubt it.
Victims of medical negligence also get little or no help from the authorities, and the so-called complaints procedures are just a waste of time and effort for the complainants.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi,
ReplyDeleteThank you for this historical account and tribute to Sally Clark.
One individual is still attacking Sally, from the advantage point of being alive, in the form of an offensive obituary.
This is heartbreaking news. We live in sad times, but Sally was strong in the face of injustice. We could all learn lessons from her actions and self-discipline.
As a lawyer she knew the score - it wasn't her place to prove her innocence - it was up to the
Judge and Jury to prove her guilt with the weight of dodgy evidence.
Have you seen this SUSPICIOUS, offensive "tribute"?
.
.
http://mutated-unmuated.blogspot.com/2007/03/sally-clarks-death.html
.
.
Yours sincerely
Coral P
www.coralpoetry.blogspot.com
Hi,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your reply at my blog.
This is an open letter to Prof Hamblin who has blocked replies at his blog.
.
.
.
http://mutated-unmuated.blogspot.com/2007/03/sally-clarks-death-preventable-tragedy.html
.
.
.
Professor Hamblin,
Your erroneous original thoughts still stand here. Yes, the Internet is a big place, but not for an 8-year old grieving boy whose name is on your blog.
I actually have more respect for Roy Meadows who has maintained a respectful silence (who carried out his job to the best of his ability, armed with the technology at the time) than I have for you, a person armed with hindsight who says:
“Perhaps Clark was possessed by guilt that she really had killed her kids.”
One of her babies died of a staph infection. How do you justify this argument, which you posted 24 hours after her death? How can she kill her baby by staph? You and I are both armed with hindsight.
One of these “kids” is an 8-year-old boy who is likely to be reading your message.
You also say: "Sally Clark has died in suspicious circumstances."
As a medical professional, how can you suggest these are the circumstances 48 hours before a post mortem?
OK, I accept this is doctor’s jargon for “sudden death” but to the layperson (including an 8-year old boy) this means foul play or murder. How do you explain that supposition to the other occupant of her house when he reads this message at your blog?
If I were you and I chose to leave the original post here indefinitely, I would be looking to compensating this little boy in monetary terms. I think you should admit your error by sending this boy (the deceased's son) a cheque for an amount no less than £100,000 as compensation in the event he reads these inaccurate and malicious slurs against his late mother.
Regards,
Coral